Text Size

Romney advisers and people close to the campaign now say that to complete the sale to voters, Romney must explain more precisely what he would do as president, especially on taxes and spending, which consistently tops lists of voter concerns.

The most likely forum for the finer level of detail will be the three presidential debates beginning Oct. 3.

According to his advisers, Romney will offer more detail on how he proposes to pull off the delicate balancing act he proposes: cut income taxes by 20 percent and corporate taxes by 10 percent but maintain current levels of defense spending. All adding nothing to the $15 trillion national debt.

The shift to offering more policy information — which could include tricky topics like eliminating the beloved mortgage interest and charitable giving deductions — is not universally viewed as a great idea by Republicans. But amid criticism that the nominee has been too vague, his campaign is getting ready to say more.

“Voters are not looking for detailed budget blueprints. They want to know what your principles are,” senior Romney adviser Kevin Madden said. “But he will offer some more specifics in the debates — which is often where these things come out — under direct questioning on specific issues.”

Madden added that the selection of Paul Ryan as the vice presidential nominee and the subsequent debate over Medicare shows the campaign is not afraid of delving into more specific policy arguments and thinks it can win them, or at least fight to a draw on issues that once heavily favored Democrats, particularly in senior-heavy states like Florida. “We think the big issues of Medicare, spending and the trajectory of the federal budget are important to talk about and good for us. They offer our campaign an opportunity to be candid with voters about the future,” Madden said.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has been one of the loudest critics of Romney’s play-it-safe approach, saying on Wednesday at a Bloomberg/Washington Post breakfast that Romney should get into more detail on his spending plans, which so far mostly include a promise to cut spending to no more than 20 percent of the economy. “The more meat you can put on the bones, the better,” Walker said.

The counterargument from other Republicans: Why get into possibly dangerous policy specifics when you don’t really have to? Why not use the traditional advantage of the challenger: rail against the incumbent’s record and just sketch some broad ideas for what you would do differently.

“Every challenger since at least Nixon has enjoyed that advantage. Why would he give it up?” said Tony Fratto, a Treasury and White House official under George W. Bush. “You tell people what you are against, not exactly what you are for. People like us care about the details. Wonks care. But voters won’t punish him for not doing it. They don’t care about details except on certain single issues like abortion.”

Readers' Comments (19)

OhOh I can't wait. Will Mitt be the moderate Republican of Massachusetts? or the right of TeaParty of 2012? or perhaps somewhere else?? Will he be contradicting his previously recorded interviews with a new etch--sketch?

I want to see Mitt's birth certificate because he not at all like his father, George Romney.

George, a Republican, was so respectful to the American people and to forthright, honest, open leadership that he made public 12 years of tax returns when he ran for President.

George earned millions less than his son but payed a tax rate several times more than only the 13% his son paid. And of course, George did not abuse tax loopholes or hide hundreds of millions in offshore tax havens.

At AMC, George instituted company-wide savings, and he and other execs reduced their salaries by up to 35%. The stock rose from $7 to $90 per share, making him a millionaire. However, when he felt his salary and bonus was excessively high, he gave the excess back to the company.

George as Nixon's HUD Secretary continued the initiatives of President Johnson’s Great Society and had a deep concern with ending racial segregation and income inequality.

In his 1968 book, The Concerns of a Citizen, George warns of, "the mounting danger of hostile confrontation between an achieving society and a dependent society—suburb against slum, prosperous against poor, white against black, brother against brother...would be the death of America."

Why do we have to wait until October 3rd? If his policies are soooooo wonderful, he should be shouting them from the mountain top right now. And if they're soooooo wonderful, then maybe the presidential race wouldn't be in such a dead heat, and he wouldn't have to take so much money from Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers, or spend so much money bashing Obama with lies. Really Mitt, why hold back? We know your promises hold no water, just ask Massachusetts, so just tell us your wonderful details now, so we can all hail your name and kick Obama to the curb.

Too Late! The Republicans made a fatal mistake in failing to have Ryan use the best possible forum to lay out details of the Romney/Ryan plans. I, like many, thought that was the real reason that Ryan was picked for the ticket, not the hard line absolutist abortion position and "right wing energizing" that the commentators focused on.

Ryan could have been the one person speaking for the campaign who did not attack President Obama but by simply following the Riebus Republican litany of attacks, he missed the opportunity that he is supposedly capable of, to present a clear and convincing argument in support of the Romney/Ryan budget and position on Medicare. That could have made a difference to what should have been the real target audience, the independent and undecided voters. He is not likely to have that opportunity again.

The failure of the Republican party to recognize that to the extent that their election strategy was to make the election a referendum on the Obama presidency, it succeeded as just about everyone who would vote against the President has been clearly identified and enthused as much as they are likely to ever be in the next 70 days. That failure led them to continue that strategy instead of recognizing that, for undecideds and independents, the campaign is now a comparison of the two tickets and the substance that the respective tickets will bring to the governance of the country.

Ryan, if anyone, could have done that, Romney can't for a number of reasons that even his supporters would probably acknowledge; limited likeability, inability to connect well with middle class, his extreme wealth, income tax questions, etc.. Had Ryan made that kind of analytical presentation, like the executive VP of a corporation would do, Romney could have simply done what he is best at tonight and in the debates, being himself as a CEO and "big picture" guy who could direct the country using the technical skills of his team.

Ryan had the largest venue for undecideds that he is going to get as the debates are not set up for detailed presentations and explanations but for short statements and brief answers to questions. In addition, the VP debates are not as widely watched as the presidential debates. The Republicans missed that opportunity with Ryan's speech and will not have that opportunity again, likely leading the undecideds and independents left with the agenda and direction that they know from the past four years versus the vague and undefined promises of the Republicans that they would do it better and that Obama is a bad, foreign man. Given that, 2012 is likely to be known among professional politicians and students of politics as the year the Republicans lost rather than as the year that the Democrats won.

What a laugh! Details what details? The GOP's working class supporters are so loyal and stupid that they buy anything as long as it sounds patriotic. It worked for Reagan, who tripled the National Debt, which was managable and less than $800 billion through Carter. He even raised taxes 11 times, doubled the budget deficit and unemployment went from 7.5% to 11.5% in his first term, and his illegal Iran-Contra schemes and lying under oath about it could have gotten him impeached. He even came close in 11/1983 to ending life on earth by nearly provoking the paranoid old Soviet regime into a nuclear first strike with his militaristic "evil empire" bluster, massive multi-trillions in military spending including a new generation of nuclear weapons and the Titan II missile installed in Europe, his SDI-"Star Wars" space-based, anti-ballistic missile systems which the GOP have kept going to the present despite that it is costly at over $6 billion, is unnecessary and is unproven.

The GOP (Greed On Parade) have never seen an expensive, long-running weapons system they did not love and want a piece of the "free money" government spending. Which party is responsible for the bulk of our National Debt? An easy one, the Republicans, follow the money, count all of the bodies. God will.

the only detail needed is that romney's economic plan doesn't add up according to the Tax Policy Center.

so here's the GOP rap on president obama as stated by paul Ryan (of course many others posting on politico) candidate obama made promises he didn't keep/broke.

my question is if that's so bad, what politcian hasn't, then why vote for candidate romney when analysis conducted by independent economic policy groups TPC and CBPP say his "promises" mathematically don't add up, are not possible?

Okay, Mitt, if you can't give us any details about your tax history, your business career, your investments, your Romneycare, or your term as governor of Massachusetts, MAYBE you can come up with a few specific budget proposals.

But if you're thinking you can just borrow them from your boy Ryan, think again, 'cause his budget doesn't add up, either.

One of the Koch brothers a big money supporter of Mitt just said what he thought Mitt should do; raise taxes, and support gay marriage.I think we are going to have another Obama but it wil Romeny....yes